The Titanfall website
has details on a new patch for Titanfall, Respawn's mech shooter. Word is
this adds support for 144Hz monitors: "Extreme frame-rate support - The game now
supports refresh-rates up to 144fps." The patch notes also describe enhanced
custom loadout support, new match reporting options, a bunch of game balance
changes, along with bug-fixes. Thanks
DSOGaming.

Unless you have thousands of dollars worth of home theater equipment, the odds of you hearing the difference between 16bit and 24bit audio are exactly zero. The differences you are more likely to hear are between PCM (uncompressed), and the different encoders (DTS/DD/PLII).

I'm willing to bet that most of this "uncompressed audio" on console games is still 16bit.

actually uncompressed audio is a step in the RIGHT direction. they fucked up because they decided to include all the audio for all5 multi5 languages in their audio install, that's what makes it 50GB.

but it's PATHETIC how the PC audio portions of games gets gimped. PS3 has been using 24bit/96Khz sample rates in their games from the beginning. On PC all it gets is a 16-bit/48Khz signal. lowest common denominator. welcome to "advanced" PC gaming.

kids care more about how many gigatextels their gpus can pump out, but no one's given a fuck about the audio. and it's all handled by the windows stack anyways, has been for 7-8 years now? so that new audiocard you bought? yeah, does literally nothing. isn't even used to decode the audio stream, it's all software, and all audio cards provide now is additional software DSP effects ontop of the existing software windows stack.

boggles my mind that my PS3 can still sound better than any PC game. go listen to a recent Battlefield title on a nice soundsystem on PC, then on PS3, you'll shit yourself.

Quboid wrote on May 13, 2014, 19:53:Thanks scheherazade. They're cheaper than I thought. Which has better image quality? There seems to be quite a few variants of the Qnix one, not all are 120hz.

This might not make sense but: is there any advantage to 120hz over 90hz other than the obvious? An extra 30hz probably won't matter to me as I'm fine with a 60hz monitor and a slow response time. I'm wondering if, as 120hz is a multiple of 60hz, there is better software compatibility or any advantage like that. I don't mean adding an extra frame like some TVs do, that's silliness.

The Catleap has nicer coluors.The Qnix has better darks.

You need a variant with dual link DVI.

Note that the original Catleaps that went high hz were the ones with a "2B" serial number. Later ones did not go 120hz.

120hz.net sells special Catleaps that are made to the old 2B spec.Overlordcomputer.com branched off of 120hz.net, and started selling its own Catleap variant under the Overlord title.

Also, driver version matters. I haven't messed with it in a while (as mine works, so why would I), but back when I was getting these, you needed to patch drivers to allow the refresh rates.- nVidia initially worked, then they got wind of it and capped the hz, then later they released an unlocked driver again.- ATI worked up to around 90 or so, and needed a patch to go higher.I have NO IDEA if this is still the case or not.

What hz it gets is up to the individual monitor. Some go to 150+, some tweak-out just hitting 90.

My Qnix initially maxed out at 119hz. Then some time later, I tried 120 again, and it would accept it. It actually improved with time.

You can use any hz that works, there is no technical issue with odd numbers.

Thanks scheherazade. They're cheaper than I thought. Which has better image quality? There seems to be quite a few variants of the Qnix one, not all are 120hz.

This might not make sense but: is there any advantage to 120hz over 90hz other than the obvious? An extra 30hz probably won't matter to me as I'm fine with a 60hz monitor and a slow response time. I'm wondering if, as 120hz is a multiple of 60hz, there is better software compatibility or any advantage like that. I don't mean adding an extra frame like some TVs do, that's silliness.

Creston wrote on May 13, 2014, 13:10:I did try one [120Hz], and honestly, while it is very nice, I didn't feel it was worth the substantial difference in price.

What games did you play? I should have said I meant try it for fast-paced games, since obviously it makes no difference for general Windows usage. But for games like Call of Duty (90 FPS cap sadly) or Devil May Cry or other very fast action games (that allow 60+ framerate), the difference is incredible assuming you play at a competitive level.

Both do 1440p@120hz.Both are variants of IPS, but with different marketing names. eg. S-IPS,PLS.

I also have some high speed asus TN displays at 1080p (with lightboost).All in all, I prefer the 1440p@120hz ips displays, and I keep my 1080p asus displays as backups and/or occasional laptop monitors.

Scheherazade wrote on May 13, 2014, 14:25:I use 2560x1440 @ 120hz. (ips)

It's kind of the best of both worlds. Happy with it.

I know IPS has a tad more pixel latency, but I'll spare that 4ms or so for the nicer colours. I'm getting old anyways, it's not like I can FPS like I used to (not like it matters, since action [i.e. quake/ut] FPS games are a relic of the past too).

-scheherazade

That sounds ideal for me, who made it? I'd happily forgo a few milliseconds for a better picture, although I'd like to get an OLED screen and have both. I presume G-Sync isn't worth waiting for for much the same reason.

What sort of connector do these monitors use? I don't think my Geforce has a Display Port socket.

HoSpanky wrote on May 13, 2014, 14:53:Who makes your monitor? Mine is an LG, but runs at 60hz, hadn't really heard of any 120 or 144 monitors that were IPS, so I haven't even bothered to look. Also, my machine is designed to stay QUIET, and running a higher max fps means more work. At 60 fps, neither video card has to work very hard, and my framerates very VERY rarely dip below that solid 60.

Altho I think, in the end, the Oculus is going to be deciding what upgrades I need (if any).

Scheherazade wrote on May 13, 2014, 14:25:I use 2560x1440 @ 120hz. (ips)

It's kind of the best of both worlds. Happy with it.

I know IPS has a tad more pixel latency, but I'll spare that 4ms or so for the nicer colours. I'm getting old anyways, it's not like I can FPS like I used to (not like it matters, since action [i.e. quake/ut] FPS games are a relic of the past too).

-scheherazade

Who makes your monitor? Mine is an LG, but runs at 60hz, hadn't really heard of any 120 or 144 monitors that were IPS, so I haven't even bothered to look. Also, my machine is designed to stay QUIET, and running a higher max fps means more work. At 60 fps, neither video card has to work very hard, and my framerates very VERY rarely dip below that solid 60.

Altho I think, in the end, the Oculus is going to be deciding what upgrades I need (if any).

I know IPS has a tad more pixel latency, but I'll spare that 4ms or so for the nicer colours. I'm getting old anyways, it's not like I can FPS like I used to (not like it matters, since action [i.e. quake/ut] FPS games are a relic of the past too).

Cutter wrote on May 13, 2014, 12:08:Fuck, I wish Bethsoft would patch Skyrim for that.

Does it look good, or is it similar to the "soap opera" effect that you get on the 120hz TVs that do frame interpolation; where it looks "off" or unnatural. Do you know the effect I am referring to? My screen is only 60hz, so I can't tell if this video accurately represents it, but here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dE6HPIAJM

I have an Asus 27" 144HZ monitor and it looks wicked sweet with that which supports those rates. Skyrim gets fucked up at anything over 60HZ. While there is the ocassional artifact or scan line, it makes water in caves really weird and when you walk into shops and homes items fly all over the friggin' place.

"We choose the right to be who we are. We know the difference between the reality of freedom and the illusion of freedom."

I have a 60hz LCD monitor from 7 years ago, its response time is the full 16ms. I know there's motion blur but unless I specifically use motion blur or ghosting test pages then I never notice it. Still, I hope to be needing at least 90 FPS at 2560x1440 for the Oculus Rift so I might get a fancier monitor soon. Did Microsoft ever add decent PPI scaling to Windows?

If you want to rub console gamers' faces in their 30 FPS, their framerate comparison is interesting. I wonder how visible 120FPS would be to me on that test.

Cutter wrote on May 13, 2014, 12:08:Fuck, I wish Bethsoft would patch Skyrim for that.

Does it look good, or is it similar to the "soap opera" effect that you get on the 120hz TVs that do frame interpolation; where it looks "off" or unnatural. Do you know the effect I am referring to? My screen is only 60hz, so I can't tell if this video accurately represents it, but here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dE6HPIAJM

120/144hz monitors are actually capable of 120 or 144hz. No interpolated frames.

Every time you preorder a game, you become part of the problem. Don't be part of the problem.

DrSquick wrote on May 13, 2014, 12:36:Does it look good, or is it similar to the "soap opera" effect that you get on the 120hz TVs that do frame interpolation; where it looks "off" or unnatural. Do you know the effect I am referring to? My screen is only 60hz, so I can't tell if this video accurately represents it, but here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dE6HPIAJM

Real 120Hz or 144Hz monitors don't have any of that so-called soap opera effect. That effect occurs when using fake interpolation and major overdrive on cheap LCD screens.

I personally have a Samsung S27A950D 27" 120Hz monitor and it is so smooth and fantastic. This whole framerate issue has been mucked up by TV manu's who cheat with interpolation. The thing is the content must be able to truly render in higher framerates, which TV shows cannot do since they are prerendered at 24/30 FPS.

Games on the other hand, using real-time engines can render on the fly at 120/144 frames. Anyway TVs simply cannot be compared to monitors.

Bottom line: try a 120/144Hz monitor and it will blow you away and you won't ever want to go back to a lame 60Hz.

Cutter wrote on May 13, 2014, 12:08:Fuck, I wish Bethsoft would patch Skyrim for that.

Does it look good, or is it similar to the "soap opera" effect that you get on the 120hz TVs that do frame interpolation; where it looks "off" or unnatural. Do you know the effect I am referring to? My screen is only 60hz, so I can't tell if this video accurately represents it, but here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dE6HPIAJM

That would depend on your monitor. You're going to notice it blurring more on a cheap, piece of shit LCD.

But really, "extreme" frame rate support? By letting your monitor drivers use the refresh rates of the resolutions it supports like every other game does? I like how they cite 144 and then use fps instead of hz. Obviously, these fucking nimwits have no clue what they're talking about. >:\

Cutter wrote on May 13, 2014, 12:08:Fuck, I wish Bethsoft would patch Skyrim for that.

Does it look good, or is it similar to the "soap opera" effect that you get on the 120hz TVs that do frame interpolation; where it looks "off" or unnatural. Do you know the effect I am referring to? My screen is only 60hz, so I can't tell if this video accurately represents it, but here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_dE6HPIAJM